Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL,
WESTERN ZONE BENCH, NEW DELHI
PUNE ZONAL BENCH
I.A. NO. 88 OF 2020
IN
Original Application No. 7 of 2020.
Aryavart Foundation Through its president … Applicant
Versus
M/s. Naroda Enviro Project Limited (CETP) & ors. …. Respondents
INDEX
Sl.No.
Particulars Pg.Nos.
1. Reply on behalf of the respondent no. 1 along with Affidavit
2. ANNEXURE-R-1 (Colly.) Copies of relevant extract from Criteria for Hazardous Landfills issued by CPCB in February 2001, letter dated 11.06.2020 addressed by GPCB to Eco Care Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and copy of the letter dated 02.10.2020 addressed by Eco Care informing the answering respondent that their TSDF site was closed
3. Proof of Service
ANUSHREE KAPADIA Filed by: New DelhiDate: 09.10.2020 ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT No.1
B-5/50, 03rd Floor,Safdarjung Enclave,
New Delhi – 29Mobile No. 9958009320, Email: [email protected]
1-15
16-36
37
903
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL,
WESTERN ZONE BENCH, NEW DELHI
PUNE ZONAL BENCH
I.A. NO. 88 OF 2020
IN
Original Application No. 7 of 2020.
Aryavart Foundation Through its president … Applicant
Versus
M/s. Naroda Enviro Project Limited (CETP) & ors. …. Respondents
REPLY ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NO. 1
1. The instant application filed by the original applicant is not
maintainable and does not deserve to be allowed. Since the main
matter (O.A.) is fixed for hearing on 14.12.2020 along with the
report, the present application is even otherwise infructuous.
1 904
2. The applicant has not approached the Hon'ble Tribunal with clean
hands and has failed to make out any case for urgency to warrant
an early hearing.
3. The application though titled as “application for early hearing”, is a
couched attempt at seeking other reliefs going beyond the original
application and going much beyond the relief of early hearing. The
instant application being misleading and malicious on the face of
it, deserves to be rejected in limine with costs.
4. At the outset all the statements, averments and contentions of the
instant application are denied in toto and nothing stated therein
may be deemed to be true and correct unless the same is
expressly admitted to be true and correct hereinafter.
5. Paragraph – wise reply:
Para 1) The contents of this paragraph of the IA are denied as
being misleading. The case of the original applicant in
the OA is that untreated effluents are being released
into the River Sabarmati by the Respondent No. 1
causing pollution of the river. After the Respondent No.
2 905
1 filed its reply and after the report of the Joint
Committee failed to substantiate the false claims of the
Original Applicant, the present IA came to be filed with
renewed submission of discharging of “semi-treated”
effluents into Sabarmati River.
Para 2) The contents of this paragraph of the IA are a matter
of record. Respondent No. 1 has no knowledge about
when the report was submitted before the Hon'ble
Tribunal, since a copy of the same was not served on
Respondent No. 1 while service was made to Original
Applicant.
Para 3) The contents of this paragraph of the IA are a matter
of record.
Para 4) The contents of paragraph 4 are denied as being false
and misleading. There is no new development after the
order of 27.08.2020 so as to give any cause for
urgency as is being wrongly assailed before the
Hon'ble Tribunal. Merely, filing of report by the
Committee cannot be a ground for early hearing. The
3 906
report of the Committee, though being objected to by
Respondent No. 1, only refers to improved effluent
quality than what is being alleged in the Original
Application. Therefore, even if report is considered for
the sake of argument, there is no “continuing violation”
when clearly the Report does not support the
allegations in Original Application.
Para 5) The contents of this paragraph are denied as being
false and misleading. It is denied that the alleged
violations in the committee report are stark or
necessitate early hearing of the matter. There is no
finding warranting any urgent hearing as being
alleged. The committee report itself is replete with
errors, inaccuracies and non-disclosures and not
acceptable as stated by Respondent No. 1 by way of a
separate affidavit.
Para 6) The contents of this paragraph are denied as not only
being false but also malicious. The percentage of
outfall from CETP of the Respondent No. 1 has been
4 907
provided by the Respondent No. 1 in its reply, which
was filed prior to the report being made available.
Share of 10 % to 12 % of hydraulic load in the
megapipeline does not amount to causing of pollution,
per se. It appears that the Original Applicant is not
conversant with simple terms like “hydraulic load” and
is trying to make out a case where there is none,
signifying its ignorance and the ultimate intention to
confound issues. Merely having a share in the hydraulic
load does not cast any obligation on the Respondent
No. 1 for alleged pollution of Sabarmati. It is necessary
that there is determination of individual parameters of
each CETP/ STP having their outfall in the mega
pipeline, which would clearly be higher than the
Respondent No. 1 since the average itself is higher
than the parameters found in the effluent discharge of
CETP of Respondent No. 1. It is also necessary that the
illegal, unidentified and unspecified discharges into the
megapipeline are ceased before making adverse orders
against the Respondent No. 1. The allegations of
5 908
pollution of Sabarmati by the Respondent No. 1 are so
casually, unscientifically and irrationally thrown around
by the Original applicant, that a grave question arises
before the Hon'ble Tribunal over its credibility and
intentions in initiating the present proceedings.
Para 7) The contents of this paragraph are again denied as
being false, misleading and misconceived. The Original
Applicant has no knowledge of implementation of
hazardous waste management in the country and has
unwittingly revealed its lack of knowledge about
environmental protection. So far as the issue of sludge
management discussed in Para 2.3.4 of the Report is
concerned, it is stated that as per CPCB Criteria for
Hazardous Landfills, all hazardous waste management
sites are required to be kept capped with the final
cover/intermediate cover and landfilling operations
remain suspended during monsoon. GPCB also
addresses letters to operators of landfill sites on
monsoon planning of landfill sites requiring them to
6 909
cap the phase with a cover. Copies of relevant extract
from Criteria for Hazardous Landfills issued by CPCB in
February 2001, letter dated 11.06.2020 addressed by
GPCB to Eco Care Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and copy of
the letter dated 02.10.2020 addressed by Eco Care
informing the answering respondent that their TSDF
site was closed from 26.05.2020 and that it will be
expected to re-open on 20.10.2020 are annexed
hereto and marked Annexure R-1 Collectively. The
committee itself has recorded that from November
2019 to July 2020 NEPL has disposed of 7492 MT
sludge to Eco Care and 3542 MT to Detox India. The
period during which the committee visited was the
period of monsoon. It was on account of monsoon as
well as prevailing COVID situation, which restricted
transportation that the sludge was collected in a
separate earmarked area. The committee has also
recorded that the leachate was in a temporary storage
area and that from such temporary storage area it was
transferred to CETP inlet. The image purported to be
7 910
of 2019 also appears to be of monsoon season. It was
on account of such peculiar circumstances that the
sludge was stored. The removal of sludge resumed
from 27.09.,2020. Since then, approximately 100 mt of
sludge was disposed of to Detox India. In any case,
the sludge was well protected from rain through
tarpaulin cover and RCC flooring. As observed by the
Committee, seepage, if any, is well managed by
treating at CETP. Hence the apprehension of
percolation in ground is baseless.
It is unfortunate, if not surprising, that the Report
prepared by a committee consisting of officials of CPCB
and GPCB has made such allegations in its report
without reference to the existing operational
framework for disposal of hazardous waste
management.
It is all the more necessary to appreciate the lack of
credibitliy of the Original Applicant who is taking
advantage of such non-disclosures in the report when
8 911
issues of sludge and leachate management are not
even raised in its O.A.
Para 8) The contents of this paragraph are mere reproduction
of a part of the contents of the report and it is not
clear how any part thereof amounts to “continuing
violation” as is being alleged. In fact the numbers in
the report are itself erroneous and correct figures are
being provided by the Respondent No. 1 in its
objections to the Report. The very fact that the
Original Applicant is relying upon reproduction of
innocuous parts of the report to build up its argument
reveals the absence of any knowledge, competence or
credibility on part of the Original Applicant.
Para 9) The contents of this paragraph are denied as the
report itself is erroneous and inaccurate in this respect.
The committee consisted of officials of GPCB as well as
CPCB. CPCB has a daily and intra-daily record of online
monitoring of the quality of effluent of the CETP of the
Respondent No. 1 since Online Continuous Monitoring
9 912
System for Effluents purchased from CPCB approved
vendor has been installed at the outlet of the CETP.
Such records have not been acknowledged in the
report of the committee. GPCB conducts regular testing
of effluent samples without providing a counter sample
to the Respondent No. 1 and the same being in
violation of statutory provisions, was all through out
objected to by Respondent No. 1. Copies of letters to
this effect have already been placed on record along
with the reply of the Respondent No. 1. Moreover, the
procedure adopted by GPCB for collection, storage and
testing of the sample, is unscientific as already stated
in the reply of Respondent No. 1. GPCB has recently
corrected one of its test reports after the error in
protocol was pointed out implicating that such
mistakes have happened in the past also but have not
been corrected. In view thereof the test reports
prepared by GPCB are not accurate or reliable. Despite
GPCB being represented in the committee through its
nominated official, such fact has not been disclosed in
10 913
the report. The reports of GPCB having been prepared
in violation of statutory requirements, are even
otherwise lacking evidentiary value.
Para 10) The contents of this paragraph are matter of
record.
Para 11) The contents of this paragraph are not relevant
for assailing any urgeny for early hearing and therefore
not germane to the instant application of the original
applicant.
Para 12) The contents of this paragraph are grossly
incorrect. The report has nowhere found the three
member industries, inspected by it, to be violating any
norms. The statements of the original applicant are
false on the face of the record, thereby proving the
abject abuse of process of law. Such an application
deserves to be rejected with costs and the original
application also deserves to be rejected for the original
applicant is misusing and abusing the process of law.
11 914
Para 13) The contents of this paragraph are denied as
being false. It is denied that there are “many other
observations showing continuous non-compliance by
the Respondent No. 1.”
6. Since no case is made out, for urgency to grant early hearing, the
prayer (a) is not tenable. Relief/s claimed in prayer (b) are also
legally not tenable. Firstly, such a prayer is not maintainable while
seeking early hearing, clearly indicating that a hearing has not yet
taken place and therefore, no orders can be passed against any
party. The relief/s claimed in prayer (b) are also against third
parties who are not before the Hon'ble Tribunal, which is not
tenable. No case is even made out against such third parties to
warrant making of such prayers. In view of the test reports
pertaining to individual member industries summarized by the
committee with its report, prayer (c) is infructuous. It is urged
that making of prayer (d) ought not to be taken as an excuse for
the original applicant to wriggle out of the duties it owes to the
Hon'ble Tribunal while making statements before it, which are
required to be made on oath. Numerous false statements have
12 915
been made in the application and the Hon'ble Tribunal must take
cognizance thereof to impose penalty on the original applicant in
accordance with law in addition to initiating proceedings for
perjury and contempt of court.
7. In view of what is stated hereinabove, and in the objections
submitted by the Respondent No. 1 to the report of the
committee, the instant application deserves to be dismissed with
costs.
Filed by:
ANUSHREE KAPADIA ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT No.1
B-5/50, 03rd Floor, Safdarjung Enclave,
New Delhi – 29 Mobile No. 9958 00 9320
New Delhi
Date: 09.10.2020
13 916
14 917
15 918
ANNEXURE R1 (COLLY) 16 919
17 920
18 921
19 922
20 923
21 924
22 925
23 926
24 927
25 928
26 929
27 930
28 931
29 932
30 933
31 934
32 935
33 936
34 937
35 938
36939
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=402339e405&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a%3Ar2121094141079895607&simpl=msg-a%3Ar21210941… 1/1
Anushree Kapadia <[email protected]>
SERVICE OF REPLY IN IA NO. 88/2020 IN OA NO. 7/2020 (WZ)
Anushree Kapadia <[email protected]> Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 3:57 PMTo: JITENDAR SINGH <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected],[email protected], Aniruddha Kulkarni <[email protected]>, [email protected], megha jani<[email protected]>
NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
I.A.NO. 88/2020 IN O.A. NO. 7/2020 (WZ)
ADVANCE SERVICE OF REPLY TO I.A. NO. 88/2020
Dear Sir/ Ma'am
Please find attached complete scan of the reply on behalf of Respondent No. 1 in I.A. No. 88/2020 in O.A. No. 7/2020(WZ).
Yours sincerely
Anushree KapadiaAdvocate for Respondent No. 1
-- Anushree KapadiaAdvocateSupreme Court of India
B-5/50, 3rd Floor,Safdarjung Enclave,New Delhi 110029
#M - +91 9958009320
------------------------
Disclaimer:
This message is confidential. It may also be privileged or otherwise protected by workproduct immunity or other legal rules. If you are not the intended recipient or youhave received it by mistake, please let us know by e-mail reply and delete it from yoursystem; you may not copy this message or disclose its contents to anyone. The integrityand security of this message cannot be guaranteed on the Internet. If verification isrequired please request a hard-copy version.
Reply IA 88 of 2020 final.pdf4924K
37940
